Why Some Commonly Used Language Hurts People with Atypical Neurology

colorful image of human head, with a compass outline over the cranium, and a colorful thought cloud above

by Laura Sharkey

CW: Contains discussion of, and uses, ableist words that are derogatory to people whose mental, emotional, intellectual, educational, or cognitive state is not consistent with cultural standards of "normal" or "optimal."

After reading too many Facebook posts, I am (once again) beside myself with frustration, pain, fatigue, and the kind of anger-bordering-on-rage that is rendered impotent and self-damaging by its malevolent synergy with resignation. I know I am not the only one who feels this, so in spite of my fear of the potential for argumentatively hostile reactions, it's time, once again, to disrupt.

So here goes: The words "idiot," "moron," "dumb," "crazy," “insane,” "wacko," "psycho," and an astounding array of variations of the “r-word,” among others, are used way too freely in public discourse. With the recently increasing level of collective stress and ideological conflict that we in the US are immersed in, these words have become more prevalent than spam. And these words hurt. They hurt me, and they hurt a whole lot of other people, too.

…these words hurt me. They hurt me because I know what's underneath my "intelligent" and "sane" surface, and what it costs me energetically to maintain appearances such that I am (marginally) acceptable to society…

I am, by cultural standards, perceived to be highly intelligent and reasonably sane. In spite of that, these words hurt me. They hurt me because I know what's underneath my "intelligent" and "sane" surface, and what it costs me energetically to maintain appearances such that I am (marginally) acceptable to society. I am multiply neurodivergent, and most of the words I referenced – in addition to many others – have been used against me at one time or another; not as general insults, but as criticism of self-expression on my part that was deemed confusing or bothersome in some way by someone else.

Those words are weaponized. They are designed to maim and kill, and if someone like me (who is able to mask my neurodivergence when needed and perform more or less as expected in this neurotypical world) can be injured by these words, imagine what they do to people who are less willing or able than me to mask (i.e., present themselves as "normal" for the sake of not upsetting neurotypical people), and/or navigate this disabling, neurotypical world without accommodation or assistance. Imagine the damage those words must do to people whose survival depends on relying for support on people who refer to them in this manner.

There is no need for these words, and they are dangerous. Please stop using them. If you are articulate and intelligent enough to feel righteous in deeming your opponent’s arguments or ideologies as intellectually inferior, surely you are also capable of formulating a response that does not rely on ad hominem attacks on their supposed intelligence or sanity. No matter how much it may seem that an opponent is worthy of the derision implied by these words, there is no way to use them without also perpetuating cultural biases towards those who are already marginalized by those biases.

I know first-hand how frustrating it is to try to have a conversation with someone who doesn't appear to me to be willing to listen to "reason." I often feel desperate to find a way to stem the growing tide of belief in conspiracy theories and political propaganda, because I am very aware of the extraordinary potential those beliefs have for derailing democracy in this country (even more so than has already happened). I understand viscerally how maddening it can be to perceive that someone else is obstinately refusing to acknowledge facts, science, reality, in favor of believing something that I know without a doubt is dangerous at best, and violently, oppressively, disastrous at worst. Believe me, I know. I know, because I am among those whose suffering increases sooner, and more so, than does the suffering of most people, as we continue on the track we are on. Really, I know.

I am as desperate and scared as anyone. And yet I almost always manage, without much effort, to frame my arguments, debates, comments, etc., without resorting to ad hominem attacks to defend my position. I do not call anyone "moron," "idiot," "crazy," "derp," or any other word that implies that their stance is a product of a brain- or mind-based state, condition or disability. I do not use those words because they are disrespectful at best, and are most often abusive.

Language is highly symbolic, and subliminally communicates cultural norms and expectations; derogatory language transmits unconscious biases that paint its targets as less than human and of little to no value, unworthy of dignity and respect.

Even when these words are not necessarily hurtful to the immediate target, they are always damaging to members of the groups they are designed to describe. Derogatory language is much like a virus, in that its potential to cause harm is not limited to those who are directly exposed to it. Language is highly symbolic, and subliminally communicates cultural norms and expectations; derogatory language transmits unconscious biases that paint its targets as less than human and of little to no value, unworthy of dignity and respect; worthy only of long-suffering tolerance or neglect by those who consider themselves saddled with the burden. So often, this kind of bias is used to justify unceremonious disposal – whether to neglect, houselessness, inhumane institutionalization, incarceration, or infanticide/homicide.

It’s impossible to overemphasize this point; it cannot be said too emphatically or too often because it is critical, urgent and necessary to disrupt the horrific oppression of so many people:

The use of ableist and/or neurotypically biased insults as a debate tactic is oppressive and harmful. Full stop. It. Is. Not. OK. Ever.

Those words, and the biases behind them are so baked into our cultural norm that it takes a concerted effort to weed them out. It won’t happen without a clear intention to do so.

And in spite of it not being OK ever, it is inevitable. Those words, and the biases behind them are so baked into our cultural norm that it takes a concerted effort to weed them out. It won’t happen without a clear intention to do so. In full disclosure, I, sometimes, find myself using words like “crazy” to describe a situation (but never as an insult); I have to stop myself, and intentionally find a different word.

A few times, when I've had a conversation on this subject, I am presented with the argument that words are sacred because "freedom of speech," and that unless those who are hurt by them can prove actual harm, it is reprehensible and censorial to demand that the words not be used anymore. That argument is disingenuous and sadly lacking in empathy. To defend the imagined purity or sanctity of language at the expense of respecting and trusting the reactions of those harmed by it is to disregard those people's dignity and worth. Using words that cause harm to already marginalized people perpetuates oppression. There is no way around that, and no excuse for defending it.

There is no single point of failure in this language; it is flexible and adaptive, and we have an ethical responsibility to prune as needed, in service of encouraging progressive, expanded awareness that disrupts the harmful status quo. Unless the intended message is to marginalize or degrade, there are very few words that cannot be replaced by another that will communicate the same message.

There is nothing restrictive about expecting that we intentionally evolve our language, and stop using words that we come to know are harmful.

Urging those with privilege to be mindful about the damage that is done by using derogatory language is not censorship. It is not an attack on free speech. It is an appeal to what should be recognized as common human decency. There is nothing restrictive about expecting that we intentionally evolve our language, and stop using words that we come to know are harmful. To do anything else is to perpetuate oppression by denying the horribly ableist and demeaning signals these words send every time they are used.

If you’d like to learn more about ableist language, and why specific terms should no longer be used, we’d like to offer you some resources to explore:

Autistic Hoya: Ableist Words and Terms to Avoid - Autistic Hoya (Lydia X. Z. Brown) is a disability justice advocate, organizer, educator, attorney, strategist, and writer whose work has largely focused on violence against multiply-marginalized disabled people, especially institutionalization, incarceration, and policing. This is a list they have curated of words and phrases that many disabled people consider ableist. It also includes suggested alternatives.

Why People Are Rethinking The Words 'Crazy' And 'Insane' - this is a short NPR interview with conversation between Ari Shapiro, Neda Ulaby, and several other activists, that succinctly explains how words like “crazy” and “insane” can harm people with mental, emotional, or cognotive conditions or atypical neurostates. The link contains both an audio recording and a written transcript of the discussion.

Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms & Definitions - this is a blog post by Dr. Nick Walker, a neuroqueer activist and educator. Rather than focusing on ableist language, it focuses on terminology and definitions that are part of the relatively new neuroqueer activist framework, which centers on neurodiversity in general, but specifically autism.

Image attribution: Untitled, by Gerd Altman